FireFox font sux?

[Meis]

FF



IE


FireFox, the DRG pic covering the font.
The box line, FireFox is more darker compare to IE.
On the left side, FireFox font is more smaller compare to IE.


FF



IE


Some of you might said this is just a small issue, but is annoying for me.
Both FireFox and IE font is default.
I like FireFox security/block ads but i hate the font.

Any way to make this less annoying?

[sevenpointflaw]

Re: FireFox font sux?

I dunno. I went to those pages on Firefox and looked fine.

Double Post Edited:
EDIT: What I meant to say was "...maybe its your Firefox theme?"

[Nazo]

Re: FireFox font sux?

You can change the default fonts. Options -> Content -> Fonts and Colours -> Advanced

[Mrfrodo]

Re: FireFox font sux?

Fixed the page. The JA frame section was set to render @100% width instead of the same 60% the Overview section was. It was a code issue, not a font issue for the text being covered by the pic. Had there been more text in the overview section, it would push it down far enough so the pic wouldn't have overlapped either. Guess IE can be a bit more forgiving about rendering some code.

Something else interesting I learned about Firefox the other day, hold control down and press the + or - keys on your numpad to increase/decrease font sizes. control-0 to reset. Probably have some similar issues though, certain fonts are gonna look crappy when you go changing the sizes on the page. ><

[Meis]

Re: FireFox font sux?

I been messing around with the character encoding but no luck.
And since frodo fixed the DRG page i have no problem with it now.
But yet another similiar problem happen.






I do believe that IE character encoding is more smarter than FF.

This is my setting, and they are all default. How about yours?

[Thrasher]

Re: FireFox font sux?

Sam page also had the same html problem as the dragoon page had. I gotta get around to refreshing my html knowledge no time like the present.


This a known bug firefox suffers from and may be partly what you were thinking of.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Incremental_reflow_bugs
*example
http://www.deftone.com/blogzilla/arc..._slashdot.html

[Mrfrodo]

Re: FireFox font sux?

Here's a response from someone off a linked page that Thrasher posted, hopefully it'll explain what's going on so you understand it's not really a font related issue.

# posted by pika unforgiven

This bug is caused by the fact that /. does not specify the dimensions of images in their HTML. The size of various table elements on /. 's site depend on the dimensions of these images.

What happens is that FireFox downloads the text of the page before it is able to download the images. Because it does not know the size of the images and thus the demensions of the table yet, FireFox displays the text without knowing exactly where it is supposed to go.

FireFox does not know exactly the size of the tables on the /. page until it actually downloads images and figures out the demensions of them. However, once FireFox gets this information, it "forgets" to go back and correct the text.

This is why changing the font size fixes the text layout. (FireFox already downloaded the images, so it is not missing any layout information when reformatting the text). Refreshing sometimes fixes the text layout, depending on if it displays text before getting the image dimensions or not.

About all that can really be done at this point, is to change the text size, be more specific in the coding, or use a different browser. You can probably report it as a bug for Firefox, but I'd imagine this is common enough they know about it already.

Adjusted PLD, BLM, RDM, BRD. They look ok on 1280 width, they may not on smaller res. ><

[Thrasher]

Re: FireFox font sux?

Basically what you were seeing was the differences between the way Firefox and IE handle HTML, IE tends to correct small issues like this where as Firefox tends not to correct this kind of error.

== Abilities ==
{| border="0" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="0" align="center" width="100%"
| valign="top" width="33%"|

The width=100% was causing the text to go under the picture and IE was correcting for this but Firefox was not. But after changing width=''60%'' It looks the same as it did in IE.

Hope that enplanes better what was going on with Firefox, and I remember Netscape doing this exact thing also.